Belmont has picked a directly elected mayor with a two-year term for its switch to district elections amid support from some residents and opposition from others, with a final district map decision coming March 22.
“We have big plans ahead, and if folks do not think big picture, big city, that could be a problem. Ensuring there is a directly elected mayor will keep everybody on that track,” Councilmember Davina Hurt said.
Some residents have pushed against the at-large mayor and support delaying a decision and holding more public meetings, arguing it was a rushed process that didn’t consider all residents. Those against wanted an extension and to see a map similar to the current one for Belmont’s Mid-Peninsula Water District. They felt an at-large mayor would expose the city to future litigation and unfairly give a district two representatives. Kristin Mercer, a Belmont resident, called the decision rushed and lacked enough public engagement. She disagreed with the idea of parochial attitudes taking hold and called it insulting to marginalized communities.
“An annual rotation process for mayor will encourage City Council harmony and good relations among its members and promote diversity and inclusion,” she said.
However, many residents wrote in and credited the council for a fair and inclusive process in choosing four districts with an at-large mayor. They noted it would give a greater regional voice to Belmont and ensure a unifying voice to unite the four districts. Resident Thaddeus Block said Belmont was too small to have five districts and unfavorable for the city.
“The reason that I would like to see an at-large mayor is because we need to have a cohesive strategy for the entire city. We don’t want to have parochial interests in just one little region dictating citywide policy,” Block said.
Huan Phan, a Belmont resident and former Belmont-Redwood Shores School District trustee, wrote to the city to express support for a directly elected mayor.
“I support that at least one position on the City Council answers to the city as a whole, instead of just a portion of the city. I’m hopeful that this will minimize the risk of Belmont being divided into neighborhoods, each defending its own interest,” Phan said.
Mayor Julia Mates hit back at criticism alleging a lack of public outreach and said Belmont made that a priority. She cited the city reaching out to school districts, banners put up in the city, booths in public places and information sent out through city communications.
“It is completely incorrect, and it is mischaracterizing the process and the amount of effort of council and staff to get the word out,” Mates said.
Recommended for you
Belmont is moving to district-based elections from its at-large system after receiving a July 30 letter from attorney Kevin Shenkman alleging violations under the California Voting Rights Act due to using an at-large election system. Its current system allows residents to vote for all councilmembers. The district system will only allow residents to vote for someone in their district.
Despite some resident opposition, the council supported an at-large mayor with four districts. It picked a two-year term for the mayor because it gave more opportunities for people to vote. Councilmember Charles Stone highlighted the need for regional gravitas at higher levels of being elected by an entire city or county.
“I can tell you as a member of the Caltrain board, the SamTrans board, being involved in statewide activities, it absolutely matters whether you represent 28,000 people or 5,000 people,” Stone said.
Stone noted a two-year term would give residents the chance to vote for someone every two years, which would not be the case under five districts.
Vice Mayor Tom McCune, who initially supported a five-district system, changed his mind earlier in the process to give voters more chances to vote in a democratic system.
“The five-district rotating plan would give you one vote every five years. The at-large mayor four district plan will give each voter three votes in every four-year cycle,” McCune said.
Councilmembers all had several district maps they liked, with the council eventually narrowing down options to amended versions of H and I. The community wants to keep Sterling Downs and Homeview whole, Belmont Heights and Plateau Skymont whole, keep schools and parks together, and create eastern, western and two central districts. Highway 101, Old County Road and El Camino Real are seen as natural boundaries for districts. The city will approve a final map at its March 22 meeting.
“All of the maps have certain strong points and also weaknesses,” said Councilmember Warren Lieberman. “At the end of the day, I don’t think that there is a correct or best map.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 102
(1) comment
Mayor Mates' statement that there was public outreach was disingenuous and insulting to residents. While there was public outreach for variations of the four-district plan, there was no public outreach regarding the choices of five districts or an at-large mayor. Those things were decided in two meetings just one week apart in a rushed process last November. It was a done deal before residents knew what was happening.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.